Contract is easy, NO NO NO NO vote.
Pretty easy. F the Mec. Its time they ask for what we want. My first request is the NC steps down. Then the new NC actually listens to the membership, raise DB to half of what IRS FAE allows, $230,000/yr. Fix reserve.

 

Good catch Tuck. I mistakenly used mediation vice arbitration. Everything else I understand. Thanks for the backup.

 

Why do we have all these experts on JF and APC but they can't volunteer for the union?

 

You’re assuming $0 income in the previous 3 or 2 years.
There are people at FedEx who work C/O each and every month. That can add another 360 hours. And there are people who sell back a significant chunk of their vacation every year.

 

Roughly 4 months if memory serves. May’sh until the TA was reached.

Yes, I have patience. If I was chasing $$ I would’ve been a WB Captain seven years ago.
I recently had training, yet protected min-days off.
I rarely bid CO months, and when awarded, protect min-days off...as I did the last time I was awarded a CO line.

and we’re not even in negotiations yet

 

Investment RISK is not shifted solely to the Individual, if it was, then there'd be no Floor and No Hurdle and we'd simply be buying Shares in our Pension Trust similar to a mutual fund or EFT. But, again, Sorry TonyC, a PSPP style modification is NOT a Defined Contribution Plan...it is a Defined Benefit Plan which will pay out benefits for a lifetime. Not just til you're individual pot of money runs out. Sadly, some of our peers aren't going to Collect their Pensions for decades. Some will die of illness within a handful of years after retiring, some in plane crashes or car crashes.

I think it's highly unlikely that the company could redefine what Pensionable Earnings are. I think our current PBB definitions are likely inline with Government Regulations, but I could certainly be mistaken. It's not something I've looked into.

Company Contributions to our Pension Trust has never been discussed\announced as far as I can recall.
2% of Pensionable Earnings was the proposed "pancake" value for annual calculations.
580 shares is a Year 1 calculation only, and only if you were at that year's DC limit. After that the notional value floats, so theoretically, the best possible situation for someone hired in 2023 following a transition to a PSPP style plan would benefit immensely if 2024-2026 were down years economically since their notional share purchases would be cheaper each subsequent year. eg instead of purchasing 580 shares, they'd purchase 600, and then 620. Same benefit Dollar Cost averaging enjoys. Just not to the same level as truly purchasing a mutual fund or EFT.


I'm not sure why we'd agree to any Floor Percentage less than 2%, But what if we went to 1.9% and tied the Calculation limit to twice the DB limit, which would be a huge, huge improvement (and equally as hugely unlikely IMO) or tie it to WB Capt pay.
Or negotiate a 2.1% floor?

What happens to our B plan if the IRS DC limit is lowered? Oh wait, we've already got protective language in our CBA should that happen. (Think it also protects us if the DB limit is ever lowered as well)

Every year does count. Having a young family and choosing to work only 500 hours is a personal choice. It is a choice that has a huge impact on your family's eventual B-plan value. It is a choice that has a huge potential impact on Disability Compensation, should-God forbid-our young family go on disability. (Pretty easy to live a great life on 500 hours, not quite as much fun on 250 hours)
Again, the NC listened to those very valid concerns and added another Benefit formula to the PSPP proposal. Benefits would be the highest of Market Returns, Floor Calculation, and no worse than a value created by our current A plan formula.

Mil Leave. USERRA requires FedEx to compute Retirement Benefits as if you were actually working. My expectation would be a PSPP year equivalent to 1000CHs times pay rate. (Similar to what I would expect should someone go out on Disability-but that was never explicitly discussed)
When someone comes back from Mil Leave, assuming there's been a seat bid, they are allowed to hold whatever Seat position their Seniority holds.

What levels would "break" a PSPP style Pension. I do recall hearing that our PSPP style pension was stress-tested over various historical eras without breaking.
What has broken Pensions in the past is overly optimistic investment return predictions resulting in no required Pension contributions. FedEx has been very realistic with predicted returns on our Pension Trust and has used leverage to add assets to our Pension Trust even when they haven't been required to do so.
PSPP design has a fixed contribution year by year. I have no idea what percentage that was, when the market imploded last year I posted a model of hypothetical 30% down turns year by year by year. Even with that extreme, still works out because the initial draw from our Pension Trust will be very limited (roughly 120-150 people retire each year)
This might sound odd, but a lot of times after a huge bear market subsequent years have outsized returns as well.
The future could always be different. But in that different future....how does that economic collapse impact on Traditional A plans?

In that hypothetical future, it's a land of tough choices. Pension Benefits have been negotiated lower to prevent outright termination of a plan.

"—- (this is only $600 more “guaranteed” by floor vs current plan)"
The PSPP is only a modest improvement over the status quo for those closest to retirement. (Of which I will be one should it be incorporated into our next TA, and if that TA passes)
As proposed, it really only stops the inflationary bleeding that impacts our A plan each year.

 

So then do you agree that the line in the sand can be moved?

What about my suggestion that leaves the emotion, you mentioned, out of it? Improve the current DB and go for a bigger DC?

 

Getting a bigger DC does not help every pilot, especially pilots retiring in the next 5-7 years, like myself. But if you improve the DB plan, it helps every pilot, from new hire to those about to retire. I’m all about improving the DB plan on this contract and also increasing the DC plan as well. If there are no major improvements in retirement, it will be a no vote from me, period!

 

Sorry FXLAX, I didn’t read your post correctly, we’re on the same page.

 

Not all volunteers are permitted to serve. And if you're a volunteer who rubs people the wrong way, you can suddenly be NOT a volunteer.

In an ideal world, the volunteer positions would be filled by the people who actually have the best skill set to fill the jobs, and be completely apolitical. Unfortunately, too often the most important items on the resume are friendship and clique membership.






.